skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
People who engineered this fake outrage made a lot of money by buying early and selling early, everyone who believed this scam lost money.

Let's punish hedge funds - fake outrage

Stocks are climbing up - fear of missing out

Restrictions on platforms to prevent people from falling into this scam - fake outrage

Scammers' freedom of speech is in danger - fake outrage

Looks like we entered new era where fake outrage on social media (Reddit, HN and Twitter) can make scammers a lot of money.

I am surprised that HN community is falling for this scam.
I'd argue short term there is no good answer. Long term I think the story changes quickly. I still can't shake the idea that we as a human race are going to have to adopt a universal basic income of some sort. As we automate more and more things we're eventually going to get to the point that there are not enough jobs for humans to do unless we intentionally stop automating some industries.

Assuming we can find a way to get to a UBI, programming becomes just another art. If you already have your basic needs met (housing/food/education/transportation) and have the choice to either pursue an art, or pursue a career making more money, people will have options. I have no doubt there are a lot of people that will value the freedom to decide what they want to do every day of their life over making more money in the rat race, and some of them will spend that time programming/donating their time to FOSS projects.

Between now and then, your guess is as good as mine.
They don't even show up in search. Why would Robinhood do that?
Did they stop people from selling in March when the World was panicing about Covid, despite most people assuming the stock market would rebound?

The answer is no.
I know exactly 0 people that believe the system is fair. The consensus was that big whales have an edge over the retail investors (not that it’s blatant manipulation whenever things don’t go according to the program)

I believe we need stronger regulations when it comes to what hedge funds are allowed to do. This kind of stuff can lead to the next crash and they will just receive another bailout - because reasons
Not all middle class workers are salaried. My electrician/plumber/etc own their businesses but they're closer to the middle class than the 1%. And while I have a salaried job I probably make twice their salary.

"Owning a company" is much broader than the SV startup scene.
Perhaps this would inform the discussion better, but how do you define "profitability" if not by accounting profit? There has to be a strict measure in order to make sense of things. As. I said before, the convention is to use profitability = accounting profit.

I judge by your statements of RedHat's expenses/revenue/profitability that you're defining it as operating profit? That's not a great measure to look at things: certain sectors can expense things and make a mess of it - like depreciation & R&D.

That's also a measure of the core operating portion of the business alone, it. doesn't include non-core portions, nor spending on investments/divestitures (although the latter should show in pro formas or future reports. Also to be fair that would never be counted in a profit definition, but judging from what you find important, I suspect you would prefer to include it? ).

NPVs are calculated by Free Cash Flow streams discounted at whatever your discount rate.
As well as the sticks/fascine meaning, faggots are pork offal meatballs. This meaning is still common in the UK.

https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/282049626
> It's called activist investing.

I'd be really interested in learning more about the Olympic level mental gymnastics one has to go through to write this off as O.K. but then turn around and say that a bunch of random people on an open public forum saying to buy an over-shorted stock is market manipulation. They don't even have the purchasing power to make a difference here.
If the stocks did badly they would be at a massive discount on their future earnings and would therefore be a strong buy. Unless the pandemic would permanently damage the company or economy there is no reason for the prices to substantially drop.
>> You want other people to do work for you, for free. That's completely understandable.

The parent poster was talking about submitting a Pull Request. In other words, contributing the work for free. I suppose expecting someone to look at it might be asking them to do something for free, but if that's a problem then I agree that Github should have the option of not having the button on a project at all.

Or maybe you thought PR stood for Problem Report, in which case expecting it to be looked into by someone is an expectation of free labor.
http://web.archive.org/web/20210128160620/https://bombthrowe...
Yeah. It's market manipulation from every angle and every party right now. All the crowing about "sticking it to the man" is almost certainly prosecutable as securities fraud. And yes, the folks holding the early shorts either have financing available to hold until it comes down or have transferred the position to someone who does. The people holding the bag at the end of this are indeed going to be individual investors, most of whom thought they were sticking it to the man.
No honest person actually wants free speech.
So would STUN allow a connection to be established between a a user inside a LAN and internet user?
This is not robinhood only, this is on a lot of brokers world wide. Gamestop and AMC are close-only.
Pump and dump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjLGu7X4a6U
If by "they" you mean Wall Street - pull the data sharing contracts that underpin Robin Hood's business model in the first place.

If by "they" you mean WSB - for now, they just nuked RH's app in Play Store, but they're already calling for a class action lawsuit.
Because the encouragement affects the outcome of your own investment instead of "happening on its own".
Do you have a reference for where Sussman said or wrote that? I just want to know where it is so I can refer to it.
Ok, here are the links:

* When a firm decides whether to take on new projects, they look at the projected profit of that project, and compare to their cost of capital. Only projects whose profit exceeds the cost of capital should be executed.

* Stock prices influences a firm's cost of capital, eg when raising more money.

* Relative stock prices also influence, in mergers, say, who takes over whom.

* Via all these levers and more, stock prices help select which projects of all possible ventures are realised, and who manages them.

* All of this is aimed at funding those projects that produce the highest output relative to the resources dedicated to them.

* All of this only works if stock prices are a somewhat accurate reflection of the prospects of a firm; in other words, if the share price reflects the fundamental value of the firm.

* Short sellers (and long buyers) that analyse firms and trade when they perceive a discrepancy between share price and fundamental value can trade upon that insight, which will have two effects: a) it will tend to bring the share price closer to the fundamental value, and b) it will be profitable for the firms that are correct in their assessment.

That's basically the big picture story.
Presumably the logic of these memers is "Where we're going, we don't need shorts!"
Show HN: Go library for sending messages via Discord, Telegram, Slack and Email
If you remove the short squeeze part. It is still a pump and dump. Someone is going to be holding the bag when the stock comes back down. That is going to be retail investors.
As luck would have it, a S Korean asset managment company sold its considerable holding (creating what in normal times would be a classic stock overhang) just when retail trading platforms had selectively blocked stock buys for GME et al.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/large-gamestop-shareholder...

The optics for this seem poor. As for the smell, more of a stench. [Edit to add: poor and smelly for the retail trading platforms, that is.]
My theory is that using cannabis as a coping mechanism to dull your mind to some other sort of trauma or despair will often lead to harder drugs. Cannabis is not a good drug for such coping because with sustained heavy use it will inevitably lose it's efficacy. When a well adjusted healthy person develops a cannabis tolerance, they can take a break for a few weeks to reset their tolerance. Not a big deal. But somebody who's using cannabis to cope? Going sober for a few weeks may be intolerable, but weed is no longer helping them, so many turn to another drug. Consider that coping with problems instead of addressing them directly often leads to worse outcomes in the long run, since many problems can get worse the longer you ignore them. This makes the apparent need for another drug feel even stronger in this sort of person.

In brief, cannabis cannot solve your problems and trying to mask your problems with cannabis is often the start of a downward spiral.
This is already being discussed on the front page here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25941431
Go to the third world and you'll see that reliability and longevity give Toyota a huge cachet that is basically unrivaled.

That effect is amplified in countries that have import tariffs on automobiles, because the secondary market is large.

Not everyone in the world buys cars to pleasure themselves. For most people, automobiles are a tool and their dependability is more important than their excitement factor.

Also, anyone who buys a Tesla because they like SpaceX rockets is an absolute dunce. That's like subscribing to the Washington Post because you like the navel oranges that Amazon Fresh delivers.
Or all the UBI money would pump up rents to the point that living costs make it infeasible again.
The law isn't set up to regulate 'distributed' peer to peer pump and dumps. The precedent is all focused on clearly identifiable orchestrators.

E.g: I run a stock newsletter. I hire a boxer, Evander Tyson, to hype a biotech penny stock, Scampill Co.. Tyson says to his followers and to my newsletter subscribers that Scampill is about to get a drug approved by the FDA that will cure cancer. I and my friends at Scampill make sure that the patsies have enough stock to buy when I put out my first email blast. When the stock goes up 900% we sell our shares. At that point there are no more large lots on the market, the spreads widen, and the price collapse occurs.

The SEC then sends their feds after me, the boxer I hired, and my friends, the insiders at Scampill. If they can catch me, I do some time in club Fed and have to pay some fines.

In this instance, there is no insider collusion, there is no single promoter with an interest, and there is no commonality to build a class among the redditors etc. who participated in the manipulation. You have a mixture of people who may have said illegal things and people who had totally licit (in the eyes of the law) motivations and actions. You have a big mixture there of mens rae and its absence and a big mixture of types of actus reus and the lack thereof. It is a big mess as compared to making a case against the typical P&D mob scheme.

Yet, you have an outcome that is somewhat similar to a classic P&D, and on a regulated marketplace, whereas most P&Ds happen on less regulated over the counter markets.
There are other JaaS providers that might have better pricing for you
It honestly seems less risky at this point. What is the KGB gonna do with my data? They've got no jurisdiction in the US, the best they might hope is to blackmail me. The FBI, on the other hand, does have jursidiction.
Idk if it is or not but it feels like crazy levels of illegal to be able to just halt buy orders like that. Imagine the inverse, if they just halted sell orders on a stock they were deeply invested?
Healthcare and Basic Income would do a lot to encourage entrepreneurship. I had to also wait till I paid off my student loans. There are a whole lot of shackles if you come from a humble background to starting a company full time.

On the other hand it has never been cheaper to start a side hustle.
Corporate interests control both parties. The parties are just a false illusion of choice.
Wow this statement seems much worse than saying nothing.

I am even willing to give Robinhood the benefit of the doubt here, I know it feels like a conspiracy against retail investors, maybe it is, but the stock markets are an extremely complex system and we don't know all of Robinhood's own risks and factors going into this decision.

However, to weigh in without addressing the reasoning at all and only link to resources for people to "educate themselves" is so absurdly out of touch. Maybe they should write up some nice shiny content marketing for hedge fund managers to educate themselves about risk exposure.
Short selling incentivizes fraud investigation. Case in point: Muddy Waters.
Client Side Encryption Bypass Part-1
It's basically corruption and shows why we need free markets and why it is a problem that exchanges are private companies.
I never said this wasn't possible. though it's just as likely as anyone calling anyone.

practically, short selling hedge funds and silicon valley investors don't run in the same circles. yeah, they're socially connected but they have separate networks and cultures. conflating the two because they both involve investing isn't accurate
I think that was the Sheriff of Nottingham who said that.
This is what happens when we let the unwashed masses buy stocks for free. We saw it coming and we shouldn't have let this happen.
Google image search "generational wealth USA"
You'll find several similar charts. I dislike the Washington Post, but it's just the first result:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/12/03/precariou...
Rents only get pumped up if we don't have enough housing to go around... in which case regular incomes do the same thing.
I believe the government and taxpayers made money on the bailout, see sources like: https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
The financial institutions got themselves in a bad spot, and instead of failing they were helped out, but they paid it back with interest.
This whole thing is going to wipe a lot of people out and concentrate that money into a few pockets. Manipulation? Yeah, the people who got in early on WSB egging people to jump into GME at 20x over value in order to "stick it to the man".
http://archive.is/KfUEp
Yeah. Recommendation systems, like HN, are attractive to people and difficult to replace with open protocols.
You are confused. Deriving prices from actual earnings and fundamentals isn’t inherently better than people simply agreeing on what a share is worth based on their own feelings and information. One just rises quicker than the other, because it takes in account expected future values.
Even european brokers now forbid buying gamestop/AMC.
DEXes, however, can be designed so that no person can halt trading or freeze your funds (usually you trade out of your own wallet anyway). A DEX is just a computer program running on the Ethereum blockchain. Once deployed, the blockchain is immutable, and it just sits there accepting orders.
> The hard thing here is truly free / open source software relies on generosity.

(I make a living working on an open source project.) I don't agree. The view of the value of software is just different. The software itself is valueless. This is true of all software: bits are free to copy. What is valuable is the work put into making it. In other words, you get paid for making something, not for having made something. If a company wants some feature implemented in some piece of OSS, they can go find a dev to pay to do it, and contribute it back to the world. There's no generosity there, it's just an accurate reflection of where value is actually generated in the software world, instead of the broken view that proprietary software tries to force.

Where it starts to get tricky is kind of a tragedy of the commons situation: if you wait long enough, then maybe someone else will pay to implement the feature, but if everyone does this, then the feature will never exist.
It might also just be a coincidence like the correlation of the "Per capita consumption of cheese (US)"
with the "Number of people who died by becoming tangled in their bedsheets" [1]

[1] http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=7
I suspect your confusion is based largely on the fact that you are outside the US. In the US driving is quite a bit different from much of the rest of the world.

#1 Driving is a big part of the culture and big cities are often pretty far apart.

#2 The electric charging infrastructure sucks. Tesla is seemingly the only network where you can drive 500 miles and be confident when you stop that a charge will actually take 20 minutes.

#3 Americans like big ass cars because ???

Most of the EV competitors here in the US are small cars and most have ranges which are far lower than Tesla's. Even though most people rarely drive more than 50 miles a day, a lot of people are sketchy about getting into a car with 150 mile (320km) range. There are newer cars which are coming out that are closer, but many are either more expensive than the Teslas, have shorter range, or both.

And I expect a lot of people are going to buy those non-Tesla options for $60-80,000+, and have a really unpleasant road trip the first time they get out and can't find a decent charging station.

The result is the Tesla is pretty dominant here for EVs and frankly I don't see that changing for some time unless the charging situation changes.
Once again, EXTREME greed has lost in the end.

Traders will see this as a cost of doing business. They will continue to try to do it again and again, because they've done it thousands of times in the past and only been caught out significantly once before (VW in 2008). They definitely haven't lost - the money they use isn't theirs to lose (they just take a percentage of the profit they make, they're not losing their own money) and, more importantly, traders are up hundreds of billions in the past decade or two, so a few tens of billions lost now isn't going to put them off trying again.
how could this possibly be worth it for RH? Their reputation is ruined with their core customer base and regulators are going to go after them now too
HTTPie supports headers using header-name:value CLI parameters; I didn't check whether ht supports these. You would have to save the proper response header between requests. The question then turns to how the 304 Not Modified response is handled.
> . . .also saves power consumption, time, and frustration for folks on M1 MacBook Pros.

Did you mean to say ". . . for folks /not/ on M1 Macbook Pros"?
They're talking about Occupy like it was a bad thing.
The only reason corporate embraced open source is that it saw it as a way to drive the small and medium sized businesses out of the market.

Why pay for an editor when the good guy Microsoft gives it to you for free?

People have been delusional about FOSS for way too long.
Sure, it is growing, but if the Tesla stock price is triple that of Toyota, it suggests that the profits are expected to be more than triple of Toyota’s. However, once you get as big as Toyota, there is much less market space to grow into than right now.
I think one conclusion is that venture capital backed open source companies are a oxymoron.

Open source will never be able to give the huge returns that VC firms expect.

However, open source can provide the basis for what is often derided as a “lifestyle business” that provides a sometimes very good income to a small group of people that are passionate about a project. SQLite comes to mind as an example.

Elastic is definitely bringing enough revenue for the “lifestyle” business without changing their license, however it is not enough for VC.

Be very wary of open source backed by VC.
Just like all those punishments that were doled out in 2008, gotcha.
There is no OCR overlay in /A, what are you talking about? It should be the original text.

If it's scanned copies then all it is is a bunch of images, not A compliant.
Not really lol, that’s more like trying to seceded or fight for independence while the capital insurrection attempted to kidnap and kill actual leaders of America.
Since Facebook started as just a web site and can still operate unimpeded as a web page on Apple mobile devices, I’m not sure what their case will be here. No one is entitled to simply having an app.

Rather, it seems the Facebook app has become much more valuable to them than their web pages and cross-site Like buttons ever were, allowing them to be invasive and tracking in ways they never should have been able to. Privacy restrictions are long overdue.
I am getting really sick of these articles.

NO: building protocols or decentralized networks, or anything really isn't going to solve the hate-speech/censorship problem.

This. Is. A. Culture. Problem.

The hate-speech/censorship problem exists everywhere. If you can publish somewhere, you can publish hate/spam. And if there is hate and/or spam, you need to censor. That's it. The very fact of publishing is the problem. In fact the only true way of solving the problem is to prevent people from publishing stuff.

The internet from the 90s didn't solve that problem. It just wasn't a problem so much at the time. Mastodon is certainly not solving that problem. Email, IRC, Usenet, BBses, etc. don't even address the problem...

Now, the real question is why do people get so worked up? And how can we shift the culture away from this partisan shithole we're in now?

Certainly not for me to answer that question. It maybe because people are poor, it may be because people lack some sense of purpose, it may be because of opioids, or video games, or because of vaccines and Gwyneth Paltrow. I honestly don't have a clue.

But stop making it about platforms vs decentralized crap.
This was mentioned in Outliers, I think. I wonder what the equivalent one-in-a-billion “head start” technology is for kids today.
> increasing the incentive to move money out of your buisness and into other investments

how does lower taxes incentivize moving money out of businesses? What investments were they moving into?
> Toyota isn't an energy company.

Toyota Tsusho has engaged in the renewable energy business for more than 30 years, from development to operation of power stations, with a focus on wind power and solar power generation. The company plans to make use of its expertise in management of such business in this project in order to foster the transition to a low-carbon society.

https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/32098091.html
UBI needs to be paired with restricting rent increases or eliminating zoning restrictions that limit housing supply then.
I’m not sure permitting enterprises to pick and choose which developers on an open source project get paid (as by hiring them or funding a salaried foundation staff) is a good answer to this problem.

In fact I’m pretty sure it has contributed to the rise of the celebrity/“influencer” dev who uses open source as a vehicle for self promotion rather than a means to improve software.
It's a casino if you're buying individual stocks and trading on a daily basis.

But if you're saving for retirement by putting x% of your income into an index fund? That's pretty conventional, most people with retirement savings do something along those lines.
The trend where there's a split offering of a community open source product coupled with non-open source premium offerings is sometimes a crack as well. Especially when relatively essential features aren't in the community editions.
> the best most analysts predict is an SEC or federal bailout for some hedges

This doesn't make sense. What analysts are predicting that? Hedge funds are not core infrastructure for the government the way banks are. And individual hedge funds generally manage tens of billions at most.

If this effected a systematic market correction, I could see many hedge funds going under causing a catastrophe for brokers and banks. But I don't see why hedge funds would actually be bailed out by the government.